Xeon E5-2609 v4 vs Xeon X5687

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Xeon E5-2609 v4 vs Xeon X5687 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Xeon E5-2609 v4 vs Xeon X5687: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Xeon E5-2609 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 85W instead of 130W, a 45W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon X5687

2011

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (36 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2609 v4 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,386 vs 5,418).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $552 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2609 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌52.9% higher power demand at 130W vs 85W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2609 v4 better than Xeon X5687?

Yes. Xeon E5-2609 v4 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-2609 v4 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2609 v4 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon E5-2609 v4 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon X5687 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E5-2609 v4 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $552 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon X5687 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (9.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon E5-2609 v4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2011), 66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon E5-2609 v4 vs Xeon X5687 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Xeon E5-2609 v4

The Xeon E5-2609 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 5,418 points. Launch price was $306.

Xeon X5687

The Xeon X5687 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.86 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,386 points. Launch price was $121.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-2609 v4 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon X5687 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Xeon E5-2609 v4 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Xeon E5-2609 v4 versus 3.86 GHz on the Xeon X5687 — a 77.7% clock advantage for the Xeon X5687 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Xeon E5-2609 v4 uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon X5687 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2609 v4 scores 5,418 against the Xeon X5687's 5,386 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E5-2609 v4. L3 cache: 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2609 v4 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon X5687.

Feature	Xeon E5-2609 v4	Xeon X5687
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	3.86 GHz+127%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	3.6 GHz+112%
L3 Cache	20 MB+67%	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	5,418	5,386
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,643
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	5,386

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E5-2609 v4 uses the LGA2011 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon X5687 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E5-2609 v4	Xeon X5687
Socket	LGA2011	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	288 GB
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	36